ed_balls

> Do you have a source for that?

an interview with https://twitter.com/wolski_jaros Sorry, not in english.

> You're not responding to what you're quoting. It didn't make any mention of what proportion of tanks were destroyed by what weapon. The statement would only be not true if the Ukrainians have not been able to take out any tanks with the Western missiles.

To be precise UA may take out some tanks with Javelins, but I'd guess it's very tiny minority of tanks. It's a really bad investment. You need 3-7 shots for a tank (40%-30% miss, active and passive protections, $100k for a single shot). The best way to take out a tank is to cut the fuel and ammunition supply and this is what UA does.

If someone makes statements like it's an indication that his source are propaganda videos. We don't have a single video from the frontline.

> Given that's an indigenous Ukrainian weapons system, I wonder if they're still capable of manufacturing/resupplying their forces with them (i.e. is the factory in a captured/threatened area and unable to be relocated).

I can't find the source but they have 10x stugna-p's comparing to Javelins. (can't find the source. They've been producing it for 10+ years and stockpiling for 8)

> Not necessarily. I'm sure there are plenty of people with military experience who wouldn't know that (e.g. don't have experience with Javelin missiles for one of numerous valid reasons). It's like someone can have lots of programming experience, but not know some specific about how Java works because they haven't worked with Java.

Military analyst that doesn't specialise in ATGMs pointed out to me that almost all videos we see shows the damage from the artillery. Maybe it's like someone can have lots of programming experience, but not know what for loop is. I'm not sure.

I don't think it is.

> Ukrainian forces have been able to take out Russian tanks using the Javelin anti-tank missile system being supplied by the U.S., and a lighter, more easily transportable missile supplied by Great Britain.

That is not true. Vast majority of tanks have been destroyed by artillery (2nd is stugna-p). You can see on the videos publish by UA. They are burning with twisted parts. Javelins don't cause this kind of damage. People with military experience would know that.

What is more, they must have a stockpile of chips in case of war (Soviet Union was the only country with aluminum cutlery - side effect of stockpiling resources for potential wars). China and other countries would give them chips quietly.

on average. You miss 70% and you may need 1-3 hits. (smoke or other protection, tank engine maybe cold etc.)

Tanks with active protection are even better. You hit less than 10% with nlaw. Newest Javelin is a bit better.

That's why light infantry focus on trucks.

better comparison is that fully equipped tank, with a trained crew, maintenance and logistics is 10mln. To shoot eliminate a tank you need about 7 shots from a NLAW and about 4 people that need very little training.

The best way to eliminate a tank to cut off supplies to it, so it's better to destroy trucks.

I think there will be more war. In the future wars will be fought with drones - you don't sacrifice many young people.

One could make an argument that fertility rate of 1.8 is a good thing. There is a better control of the labour market using immigration. Automation won't hurt that much.

Invest, but where and how?

> promise a reduced sentence

They did, but it didn't work

> Life is not a hollywood action movie.

This is an example from Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

> torture is morally acceptable?

Someone stole the car with the baby inside. Police caught the thief, but there is no car or the baby. There is a heatwave and the baby can last max 2h in the car. The thief panicked and dumped the car somewhere. He is not willing to tell where it is.

Beating him up to get the info is acceptable ethically.

- build muscles to increase you "static" calories consumption.

- Semaglutide shots

- Have you heart broken

That's why call it Putin's war. Russian didn't vote for it.

and mining in Siberia will be price competitive for max 15 years.

One possibility is to evacuate through Armenia or drive to Finland.

> Visegrad countries have refused for years to help with the inflows from the Southern border

People have this incorrect perception that governments are all powerful. The government in Poland did agree to take in refugees, but they lost the election a few months later.

The war on terror politics were amplified by misinformation campaigns. It was impossible for politicians to solve this problem.

> Maybe it's the time for everyone to grow up and accept that we need a new set of agreements on cross-continent

Sure, but how? People cannot even agree who is a refugee. Is it a person from Ukraine in Romania? What about next country? Is it still a refugee or a migrant?

It's extremely complex problem to solve with a lot of moral dilemmas (helping people in Mediterranean Sea means more people will try to cross, which results in more death)

No, we cannot. It seems the war will continue, which given current influx it will result in 12mln refugees, about 5mln in Poland. We don't have housing, schools, hospitals for 5mln people. This is not SF o Syria where you can live in a tent. What is more, there are trolls spreading misinformation trying to destabilise the country e.g. Ukrainians have a priority in hospitals.

With all the love and support, we need to be frank with ourselves. Just sending some aid won't cut it.

nukes is the best things that happened and the reason why there is not world wars anymore. You can make an argument that Izrael should give 3 or 4 warheads to Iran. It would de-escalate the proxy wars.

a lot of business will be bought up by Chinese for pennies.

and warning is a step forward.

True, but in war they could add a warning to the website.

Ukrainians already have, there was a counter attack in the north of Dombas

> I see no reason Ukraine would cross their own borders

to strengthen their negotiation position "We give you back X, you give back Mariupol"

> complete annihilation of Russia as a country

you think US would die for some village in Ukraine? They were plenty of US politicians and generals which were against nuclear umbrella for West Germany.

That's why I'm a big believer of modular nuclear reactors, where active cooling is not needed.

There isn't one. Maximal theoretical damage (not practical) would not end civilisation.

Ukraine is a nuclear state[1] that temporarily doesn't have nukes - they gave all to Russia.

[1]Budapest Memorandum was not fulfilled, so Ukraine regain their status of nuclear state.

demonstration nuke - it's called tactical nuke, which is different to strategic nuke. Imagine Ukrainian army winning and move towards Russia and Belarus. Putin may decide to fire a tactical nuke to "escalate to de-escalate"

Even if all nukes would go off (spread evenly) they would not kill everybody.

The worst case scenario of global worming would not kill everybody. People living north of 40o will survive.

North stream 2 has very little to do with this whole conflict. Because mining is quite expensive in Siberia, Russian gas may not be price competitive as soon as 2030. Renewable energy is getting cheaper. At some point, natural gas turbines will use hydrogen produced with nuclear and renewables to balance the peaks.

Without natural resources Russia GDP would be lower than Polish. I think the whole reason for this war is the green transformation of the world. Military dictatorship played the wrong game and didn't mange to reform the country (it seems to be a case for all countries run by military).

This is Proxy war with US/Nato to get a trade deal in exchange for balancing China with military power (last card they've got). France and Germany were OK with this - cheap resources, you can move pouting factories to Siberia, production would be more competitive than Chinese.

US and rest were not happy about this.

A pice of trivia: in Polish it should also be Kowal (Koval). Land owners were taking the names of the places they owned, so if you owned a village called, called Paris, you took the name Pariski (adjective). This created a culture of adding a ski to your name. There was even a book of peasants that weren't upper class, but took that name.

You can see on some clips how low there were flying - well within the range of manpads. As I said, it could be because they don't have a good high precision munitions.